Wedding with Nikon F

[miss._heidi_mae_billing1]

<p>Is it possible to do a Wedding with a Nikon F and the Big Wedding Picture on the Alter with a 4x5 Large Format 210mm Lens?</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Why wouldn't it be possible to shoot a wedding with a Nikon F? If your flash is powerful enough you can shoot Portra 160NC. You will have fine enough grain and enough sharpness for some very nice enlargements. Shooting with a 4X5 camera requires both more patience and more planning to get everything set up. If you have an assistant to get the 4X5 camera out of the aisle after the shots are taken then you can resume shooting with the Nikon F. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It would sure beat using a Kodak Jiffy 620.<br>

Many people used to do it all the time.</p>

[miss._heidi_mae_billing1]

<p>Jeff:<br>

I have 3 Vivitar 283's GN 150 on each I could use Difuser or blue Color Gels which do you think would be best I could angle one right one left and one in the middle and what lens would you use whith a Nikon F 35mm f1;2.8 OR 80 to 200mm zoom Lens. I am using Portra 160 ASA on both Cameras or is that a bad idea? </p>

[john_shriver]

<p>The 4x5 is for the posed studio engagement photo.<br>

4x5 at the wedding? Only with enough flash to blind everyone. Unless you want no DOF.</p>

<p> </p>

[jack_welsh]

<p>People used 4x5 graphics years ago. Long ago, there was a glass plate camera that the plates were 8 feet long and the camera weighed 1400 pounds! ( Just to let you know that if you have the will, then go for it!)</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Having done many weddings with a 35mm SLR, I would recommend the 35mm f2.8 for group photos. For full length shots of the bride and the bride and groom together a 50 to 55mm lens works well. I don't think you really want an 80-200 zoom except maybe use the 80 to 100mm range for a head and shoulder close-up. If you have a fixed focal length telephot (maybe 85 to 105mm) that would work even better. Can you use focal lengths outside this range? Absolutely, but remember there will be limitations: go much wider than 35mm and people at the edges may look distorted or stretched. Much longer than 100mm and you will begin to flatten perspective and lose "apparent" depth of field. If possible to visit the wedding location in advance bring the equipment you plan to use along with a few people to 'stand in' for the wedding party and see what works best for you.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I was about to respond, but I see Mike Gammill has addressed one concern, which is the lens choice. If I were doing this with only one camera and only one lens, I think I'd opt for something like the 35-105 zoom. I think the 35 alone would be difficult, but when I go (never as official photographer, but often as a provider of photographs) to weddings, I usually pack an Olympus XA2, with a fixed 35 lens, to provide the extra coverage and the ability ot fire off quick hip shots without using the finder, as well as for backup. Nowadays, the Stylus Epic would be the equivalent. It's worth considering. </p>

[luis_g]

<p> I did my share of weddings with my Nikon Fs. As long as you do your part, they will do theirs. Make <em>sure</em> to visually check the rewind turning backwards as you advance film. You will also need to take a back-up, no matter what. Back in the day, my favorite lenses were the 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. I used an Ascor flash, later 283s. I am 100% in agreement in scouting locations beforehand, and even doing a test roll of film. IMO, the 4x5 is a needless complication.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Back in the 70's I met a wedding photog whose worked weddings with 2 Olympus SP rangefinder cameras and an SRT 101. So I guess you can use any camera you want. As an aside, where are you going to get processing & proofs made, and how about final prints?</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>i used to shoot weddings professionally with a hasselblad 500c. for years and years in the 'film day's this and a nikon or two was a regular wedding set-up. the 4x5 of course would require more work than you or the wedding party are used to for photographs but could be done. </p>

<p>nowadays i don't shoot weddings except for my close friends and i use a nikon fm and fe with motordrives, fast primes (50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 135mm 2.8) and fast film (fuji pro series 160, 400, 800 and some tmax 3200 for effect) and i think i do very well--my stuff can look very different than the pros with their digitals but still very clean and in some cases i think you get better quality shots this way, it's just more difficult when burning film to get as many photos as folks are getting used to now with digital.</p>

[jason]

<p>It is one of the finest cameras ever built. It is perhaps the only camera with 100%<br>

viewfinder. No! The F2,F3,F4, do not show exact 100%, but better than anyone else!<br>

Make sure there is space around subjects as labs CROP!! Sometimes 100% can work against You.<br>

The weird position of flash..get a stoboframe! The A 35mm lens Ok. I used the 50mm<br>

f2.o, the 105mmf2.5(sometimes with softar filter). No zooms. I carried 2~3 bodies,one for color<br>

another for B/W, if reqd.Easier to day with photoshop and desaturate, but it ain't real B/W.<br>

Lenses are available for lil money these days..so a few primes 28mm, the 55mm Micro(macro)<br>

are very handy. Don't use the wide angles where distortion shows. Brides hate it!<br>

You are not shooting for National Geographic. Keep it simple and clean.<br>

Use all one speed films say 400ISO. The 4x5? OK, let somebody carry that, whatever..<br>

Photos at the Altar, sometimes not permitted! The more modern the religon, the less chance!<br>

The Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican and Judaism all allow closer!! Problem with 4x5 is cost and slow<br>

speed.One more thing. MUF! Money up front, even if it's only for the costs.</p>

 

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>how can you shoot a whole wedding on one speed of film unless you use a flash for everything? i believe in shooting without a flash and using appropriate film for the appropriate lighting. i find flashes going off all the tyme at events annoying and some churches don't even allow it anyway. and if the wedding's outside why burn 400? you can keep your look consistent by just using a line of films that are designed to be shot together.</p>

[miss._heidi_mae_billing1]

<p>Johnny:<br>

Istead of switching from Three or more Cameras with different ASA Film wouldn't it make more sense to use a Portra 400 ASA and if nesary I could push it to 800 ASA</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>in my case i never attend a paid shoot without at least two cameras. and i usually use both of them more or less at once. i wear one on my neck and one on my shoulder. both are of the same brand and one has a short lens, one a long, and in some cases one with a slower film, one with a faster film. this accomplished several things:</p>

<p>--allows me to make use of high quality fast prime lenses instead of using a zoom to cover necessary focal lengths quickly<br /> --rapidly change film type <br /> --when one camera's out of film, another is still ready to go<br /> --if i use two different bodies, it affords me the benefits of using each as necessary.<br /> --if anything happens to go wrong with one camera, i've got a back-up of the same type<br /> --look more impressive, but the key to this is being used to shooting like this, otherwise you're going to bang your cameras around, knock things over with them and just look like a klutz!<br>

<br /> with your set-up, incorporating the 4x5 shooter, yeah, you might just want to carry the nikon f and the 4x5, not a second nikon. since this will limit your ability to pick up gear and move quickly. of course you really have to weigh the benefit of using the 4x5 camera at all because it can only be used for particular circumstances. personally, i wouldn't try something like that unless i had an assistant.</p>

<p>oh and to comment about pushing--400 and 800 aren't going to be fast enough to cover the entire wedding without a flash. i don't use flashes so i take 100-3200 speed films to cover anything i run into. i also haven't had much experience with pushing so i'm sorry i didn't think of that! if you're using a flash i'm sure pushing and only using one film is fine. i would suggest you designate a certain number of films as 800 before exposing them so you don't have to stop later and waste time marking which ones are which.</p>

[miss._heidi_mae_billing1]

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5184930">Johnny Martyr</a>:</p>

<p >It has been a long time since I did indoor without Flash I think it was about 1965 or 1967 when the Polaroid Swinger came out with 4,000 Speed film I bought one of the first ones out and no I haven’t shot any indoor since then I was thinking 1600 ASA might be to fast are you sure 3200 ASA isn’t to fast and how do the pictures of 3200 ASA Compare to Portra 160 ASA or 400 ASA even Pushed to 800 ASA? My Dad bought me my first Nikon F with Motor Drive and Battery Pack in 1960 still in mint working condition and is there a difference between 50mm f1:1.8 and 50mm f1:1.4 and back to your question I missed. I develop my own I use Omega 4x5 color enlarger and Omega Color Analyzer I will have no problem making 16x20 or 20x24 that’s why I wanted to use a 4x5 how much distortion do you get from 35mm Negative as opposed to 4x5 Negatives? </p>

[Johnny Martyr]

 

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=85309&id=638133977&l=cabb302411

the link is to facebook where compression of images is not so great so the grain is not as 'jagged' on the higher resolution versions of those images.

here is a photo at 3200 with my nikkormat and 50mm 1.4 sc lens with tmax 3200. it's not of a wedding but it's at higher resolution so you can see the grain structure pretty well:

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2430/3698147400_090b8eb1c9_b.jpg" alt="" />

<p>wow, it sounds like you have a very rich photographic history! i have only been shooting for about 10 years now and shoot almost exclusively on vintage cameras. i really haven't bothered to learn to use a proper flash because i prefer the challenge of low light photography. i routinely shoot 1600 indoors for my company's newspaper and have had no complaints about grain. of course, that's newspaper quality, but still, my point is that i think high speed film over flash is still viable. </p>

3200 film is only available in b&w so comparing it to lower speed porta is a bit challenging. i prefer kodak tmax 3200 over ilford delta. the ilford has smoother grain. the kodak has very chunky grain. i prefer revealing the nature of the equipment i'm shooting on and i like the boldness of shooting on a grainy film because it looks soo distinct in this grainless digital world we live in. both ilford and kodak 3200 films can be rated from 800 to 6400 though, so they are very flexible. i even use the 3200 rated at 3200 outdoors sometymes for that distinctly film look.

yeah, there's certainly a big difference between a 1.8 and a 1.4 lens! i also have a 1.2 pentax which is like learning to focus all over again! but part of the reason i prefer to use higher speed film is that i am not shooting wide open unless i have to. since shooting wide open is not going to yield the best lens performance.

that's really awesome you have a colour darkroom. i don't even have the space for a b&w one right now.

as far as distortion, i'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. i have never shot 4x5 but am somewhat familiar.

 

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>oh, i see i can't post this image as large as I wanted to here so here's a link to the photo on flickr for closer inspection:</p>

<p>

[luis_g]

<p> Take and use a flash. You're going to need it. For a 2nd body, you could pick up a beater Nikkormat, which also gets you 1-stop higher synch speed. Be sure to test everything thoroughly on-site well before the wedding.</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>why take a flash?</p>

[miss._heidi_mae_billing1]

<p >Johnny:</p>

<p >I an not trying to upset you it might pass for a newspaper the above link Picture of woman with man’s foot on the desk If you just paid me say $3500.00 to shoot your daughters Wedding do you think this quality would pass I know it wouldn’t pass at any Professional Photographers meeting look how out of focus the pants are as how in focus the woman and background is. And if it is this bad now what is it going to look like after it is enlarged to 16x20 or 20x24</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>heidi, i appreciate that you're not trying to upset me and i am not trying to upset you. i am simply providing what i think and have been told is a nice looking alternative to the more conventional flash everywhere by using a less common film that allows people to appreciate a number of aspects of available light photography. </p>

<p>the difference in focus you're describing that's called depth of field. that is a result of opening the aperture closer to f1. it has nothing to do with low quality or high speed film. why do you think this looks bad? shallow depth of field adds dimension to photography and some folks go out of their way and budge to by very expensive fast lenses that open up to 1.2 or greater just to achieve looks like this. </p>

<p>i think you're being very really close-minded about what is 'good' and 'bad.' grain does not equal bad unless that is not what you're going for. i'm merely suggesting another logical alternative to the conventional religion of flash. i personally love seeing extremely large grainy prints. do you appreciate impressionist paintings? even if you don't like this look or feel that it's appropriate for your application, to say this is 'bad' and not professional is extremely close-minded. </p>

<p>for me, with certain applications, big grain proudly announces that i'm shooting on film and appreciate it's organic look. grainy high speed film is a way to shoot scenes more candidly without flashes interrupting people and creating unnatural shadows while preserving the natural light. the final product is a very organic and gritty look. some subjects are best rendered like this. others just look more interesting like this than like conventional clean, low/no grain images. i feel as though digital photography strives to be noiseless so shooting grainy film is a big f-you to digital photography and the sterilization of photography with harsh focus. </p>

<p>i understand, however that you've been shooting for many more years than i have and that in years preceding digital, high grain was something to be avoided. but i challenge you, maybe not for this project, but for future ones, to try to embrace grain and shallow depth of field. i think you'll find that these are very unique and enjoyable characteristics of film photography.</p>

[Johnny Martyr]

<p>*some folks go out of their way and budget to buy</p>

[miss._heidi_mae_billing1]

<p >Well it’s been about 30 years since I did a wedding there is no room for mistakes I can’t go back tomorrow and do it over again. Mistakes in a Wedding is unacceptable, I am not going to play a yes one way no the other way game, for the Photography you are doing is good but they will not be going over your pictures with a magnifying glass like they will with wedding pictures so let’s put it to a vote and nobody will get hurt. New post (Wedding without Flash), and see what other who have a lot more practice at this than you or I have to say. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I haven't looked at this thread in a few days. There is a lot of information. I have a Nikon F2 and I have never heard that it doesn't show 100% of the image area in the viewfinder. Pushing Portra 400 VC or NC to 800 will not give you the same quality as shooting 800 speed Portra film. The last time I shot a wedding was a few years ago in CA. I used two Minolta cameras. One was an X-700 with a grid screen. The other was an SRT-101 with the silver colored film speed dial. The X-700 was used primarily with flash. I used a 280PX flash on a Vertaflip bracket and connected the camera to the flash with a duo synch cord. If I remember the lenses they were a 24/2 Vivitar (28XXX...), 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 35/1.8 MC Rokkor, 50/1.4 MD Rokkor-X, 58/1.4 MC Rokkor and 100/2.5 MC Rokkor.<br>

Even though the X-700 has the more sensitive meter I used the slower film in the X-700 with flash and the faster film in the SRT-101 without flash. Group shots were done mostly with the 35/1.8 and I took a few indoor available light shots with it too. The older 58//1.4 has very nice out of focus rendition so I used it for some available light shots instead of the newer 50/1.4 MD Rokkor-X. Test everything first and bring back-ups to be safe. Try not to get too hung up on the whole issue of which 35mm film you will use to make 30X40" prints. If you know ahead of time you need to make prints that large you should be using a larger format. In general I would rather use a faster film and have slightly more grain but better sharpness than a slower film with less grain but a slower shutter speed or wider aperture setting. The extra grain can be an element of the picture but inadequate depth of field and overall lack of sharpness just won't look very good. A Vivitar 283 is fine. Just remember that an electronic flash set in Auto will want to render every subject 18% gray. If you are shoooting a white dress next to a black tuxedo, shoot with the flash on Manual. Portra 400NC or Fuji Pro 400H both have lower contrast and will help with your white dress/black tuxedo combination. A 35, a 50 and a lens in the 85-105 range will do most of what you need. The 35 will be the most useful of the three. Make sure you take 2 bodies and at least 2 flash units. If you can, take two 35s. A good bracket will get the shadows to fall behind the subject and down and will cut way down on red-eye. A 35/2.8 and a 50/1.8 can give you high quality images just like a 35/2 and a 50/1.4 but the faster lenses will make focusing easier. If you intend to use more than one flash for group shots you will want to use a radio slave. Old fashioned light sensor slaves can work too but they will go off any time someone else shoots with a flash too. Good luck. </p>